A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case addressed the issue of quashing an FIR filed against the appellant under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. The complainant alleged that the appellant committed rape under the false pretext of marriage. She further claimed that the appellant had assured her of marriage and taking care of her daughter if she divorced her husband. However, the FIR and subsequent legal proceedings were contested as an abuse of process by the appellant. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations of a false promise of marriage as the complainant was a mature individual who willingly engaged in the relationship. The Court quashed the FIR and related proceedings.

Keywords

Rape on false pretext of marriage; Consent under misconception; Quashing of FIR; Criminal Intimidation; Misuse of Legal Process.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgement Cause Title: XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023
• Judgement Date: 6 March 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
• Author: Justice Rajesh Bindal
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 309
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC; Section 482 CrPC
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Law Subject: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from an FIR registered by the complainant alleging that the appellant engaged in a sexual relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. The complainant, a married woman with a grown-up daughter, claimed to have divorced her husband based on the appellant’s assurances. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant alleged that she developed a relationship with the appellant, a tenant in her house, during a period of marital discord with her husband. She claimed that the appellant promised to marry her and subsequently engaged in a sexual relationship. The complainant stated that she divorced her husband on the appellant’s assurance. Later, the appellant allegedly refused to marry her, prompting the FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.

Key discrepancies emerged during the investigation:

• The complainant claimed divorce in 2018, but the decree was passed in January 2021.
• The appellant maintained that the relationship was consensual and no false promise of marriage was made.
• The complainant’s family, including her parents and daughter, was aware of the relationship.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the FIR against the appellant for alleged rape on a false promise of marriage could be sustained?
2. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the allegations were an abuse of the legal process. He emphasized the consensual nature of the relationship, pointing to discrepancies in the complainant’s claims.
2. The complainant’s divorce timeline contradicted her assertion that the appellant induced her to divorce her husband.
3. The appellant relied on precedent from Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 89] and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293], arguing that the complainant was mature and aware of her actions.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The State contended that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of rape on a false promise of marriage.
2. The complainant asserted that the appellant misled her into consenting to a sexual relationship under the pretext of marriage.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
   • Section 376(2)(n): Punishment for repeated rape on the same woman.
   • Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
   • Section 482: Powers of the High Court to quash proceedings.

I) JUDGEMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. Consent under Misconception of Fact: The Court emphasized that the complainant, being a mature individual with prior marital experience, was capable of understanding the implications of her actions. There was no evidence of consent induced by a false promise.
2. Discrepancies in Complainant’s Statements: The Court noted contradictions in the complainant’s statements, including the timeline of her divorce and the alleged promise to marry.
3. Precedent Application: The Court relied on Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that mature individuals engaging in consensual relationships cannot claim rape based on a false promise of marriage.

b) Obiter Dicta

The Court highlighted the potential misuse of rape laws in consensual relationships, cautioning against indiscriminate invocation of penal provisions without adequate evidence.

c) Guidelines

1. Courts must scrutinize allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage, considering the maturity and circumstances of the parties involved.
2. Investigations must account for discrepancies in the complainant’s statements and documentary evidence.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing consensual relationships from criminal acts under the guise of a false promise of marriage. The Court’s reliance on precedent and its thorough analysis of evidence highlight its commitment to preventing misuse of the criminal justice system.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2023] 1 SCR 1061
2. Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2013] 1 SCR 504

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 376(2)(n) and 506
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482